MONISM VS DUALISM & PSYCHIATRY 1/4 DENNET & SEARLE

http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
Niall McLaren- Psychiatrist and author of 'Humanizing Madness', 'Humanizing Psychiatry' and 'Humanizing Psychiatrists'.

An explanation of the failures of the major monist models of mind in terms of their value for biological psychiatry. Daniel Dennett's functionalism and John Searles' biological naturalism are not monist at all, they are actually closet dualist theories in that the authors have retained the properties of a dualist model of mind even though they have given them different names. This is of major significance for biological psychiatry as there is now no possible explanation of mental disorder in a biological model.

Note: This is a lecture taken from my paper due out soon "Monist Models...." and from the first chapters of my new book 'Humanizing Psychiatrists.'
If you want to learn more you can find links to my books on
http://www.NiallMcLaren.com
Most of my peer reviewed work can be found via links on my wikipedia page.
You can also try a Pubmed or Google Scholar for the papers wikipedia doesn't have.
Books (Amazon.com)
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Madness-Psychiatry-Cognitive-Neurosciences/d...
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatry-Biocognitive-Niall-McLaren/dp/161...
http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatrists-Toward-Humane-Psychiatry/dp/16...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• biological
• psychiatry
• Daniel
• Dan
• Dennett
• John
• Searle
• Niall
• McLaren
• monist
• monism
• dualist
• dualism
• philosophy
• mind
• science
• psychology
• body
• biology
• atheism
• atheist

[KWrestler21]

As I said in the comment section of video three, natural dualism is still dualism. And Chalmer's hard problem is the fact that after he does asses his grievances with functionalism, as does Searle, then he secedes into dualism via not accepting that consciousness is simply a series of neuron firings. Chalmers sees the problem with not being enough of a physicalist. Yet, he can't be one himself. Rather, he seceded into a failed dualism. Dualism, by definition, can not work.

[jockmclaren47]

@KWrestler21 Consciousness is not the same as "neurons firing." It is the informational state generated by those neurons firing, which is what Dennett and Searle hinted at by saying the brain could be replaced by microchips and nobody, not even its owner, would know.

[chaosmagegod1]

@jockmclaren47 no person or machine could ever replicate the ability of the human brain for arguments sake. remember these are philosophical views, not scientific 100% facts. All philosophy is , is one person opinion, thats why there are so many.,..

[jockmclaren47]

@chaosmagegod1 Yes indeed, but remember that your claim that "no person or machine could ever replicate the ability of the human brain" is itself a philosophical claim, not empirical (scientific).

[mrrobertfair]

@KWrestler21 Your statement beginning with "...if my neurons..." is axiomatic to you but not to me, nor can you say as an axiom that when your neurons fire that consciousness is generated...its not an empirical statement; you have to prove that consciousness cannot exist apart from say, brain death.

[drystyx]

Dennett obviously wanted to escape from reality. Then, as now, I'm sure people had to deal with sadists and bullies on a regular basis. His theory fails miserably, because the chemical reactions, everything constantly changes. The only possible way it could work is if you were a different person, inheriting the functionalist brain, with each reaction, with only the illusion, via the brain, to make you think you were the same person. Dennett either has to believe this, or in Magic.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@KWrestler21 descartes believed that the mind and body interact

[PerpetualTiredness]

@PerpetualTiredness accept*

[KWrestler21]

@jockmclaren47 (continuing) By the way, this whole bit: "Searle hinted at by saying the brain could be replaced by microchips and nobody, not even its owner, would know." Yeah, that whole bit is pretty hilarious. Dennet, well, I'm not going to argue with you there. That is more than obvious. On the other hand, Searle would say if that is a possibility, we know nothing even close to that technology for the Chinese Room shows time and time again how mere computation does not equal consciousness.

[KWrestler21]

@jockmclaren47 Consciousness is not neurons firing? So, if my neurons stopped firing, then I would still have consciousness? Oh, so it is generated by neuron firings (a purely physical action). Thus, neuron firings generate consciousness. The statement you just made contradicts dualism. They can't interact. Are you sure you know what dualism is? You seem not to understand the elementary definition of it.